Survey says: 79% support acquisition of SPU water system in Shoreline
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
From the Office of the City Manager
In early May, the City contracted with EMC Research to conduct a scientifically valid telephone poll to find out Shoreline residents’ opinions regarding the City’s proposed acquisition of the Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) water system in Shoreline. Of the 501 surveys conducted, 79% of informed respondents supported Shoreline’s proposed acquisition.
Information respondents felt was most important to know in making their decision included:
- No increase in property tax or forecasted water rates - No increase in property taxes will be required to purchase the system. It will be paid by bonds, which are repaid by the revenue generated from providing the water service. Water rates will also not increase more than SPU’s forecasted water rates for 2020 and beyond. In other words, a Shoreline ratepayer’s water bill will remain equal to or less than what their bills would be if SPU continued to own the utility.
- No more surcharge or Seattle utility tax - Shoreline customers of SPU currently pay a 14% surcharge for living outside of Seattle’s city limits as well as a Seattle utility tax that goes directly into Seattle’s general fund to pay for such things as Seattle parks, police, fire and neighborhoods. Ownership of the water utility will mean that Shoreline ratepayers will no longer pay a utility tax to Seattle and their money would no longer go towards subsidizing lower rates for other SPU customers.
- Money reinvested in Shoreline, not Seattle - Owning the water system means Shoreline can use revenues to reinvest in the system for things that SPU isn’t focused on, like infrastructure improvements to help improve Shoreline’s commercial districts and increase water flow for firefighting purposes throughout the City.
- Local control - Purchasing the SPU water system will give the City and its citizens direct control over water utility service and decisions instead of relying on Seattle’s public utility to look out for our interests. Currently, decisions on rates, charges and infrastructure investments are made by the Seattle City Council and SPU. Shoreline ratepayers have no direct voice in those decisions. If the City operated the utility, Shoreline ratepayers would have a direct say through the Shoreline City Council.
In addition to supporting the SPU acquisition, 75% of respondents said the City is moving in the right direction and 70% gave the City a positive rating for the overall job it is doing.
“When residents learn they can have local control over how the system is managed and that their money will be reinvested in Shoreline instead of Seattle, all for the same rates, or even less, as SPU would charge them, they understand why it is a good business decision for our City,” states City Manager Julie Underwood.
Acquiring the SPU water system in Shoreline has been a community priority for many years and a specific Council goal since 2009. City staff have been negotiating with SPU for several years and has been engaged in an intense due diligence process since last November to review the financial and engineering analysis of the acquisition to ensure they meet the City’s expectations. Helping the City with the due diligence process has been a 26-member citizen steering committee appointed by the City Manager. The committee’s mission is to provide a recommendation to the City Manager on whether the City should move forward with the acquisition based on the information reviewed during the due diligence process.
The ultimate decision on whether the City will acquire the SPU system will be made by Shoreline citizens through a ballot proposition on the November general election ballot. On July 23, Council is scheduled to decide whether to place the question before the voters in November.
There are two primary reasons for conducting the poll. First, it helps the Council, City staff and the steering committee better understand whether the community still considers the acquisition to be a priority. Second, the poll results help the City to understand what information residents would find helpful in making an informed decision.
The City is committed to continuing its extensive public outreach process over the next few months. City staff have already attended several neighborhood and community meetings to provide information about the SPU acquisition. Staff will also be available at a number of community events throughout the summer and fall to answer questions. If you would like City staff to provide a presentation to your group, contact Management Analyst Eric Bratton at ebratton@shorelinewa.gov or (206) 801-2217.
In addition, two public open houses have been scheduled for Thursday, June 14 and Tuesday, June 19 to give Shoreline residents an opportunity to learn more about the proposed acquisition and to ask staff questions. Both meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and will be at City Hall.
Finally, the City will continue to distribute information through neighborhood newsletters, the City’s newsletter Currents, and direct mailers to the residents of Shoreline.
See the full results of the survey and to find more information about the proposed SPU acquisition.
Posts
4 comments:
This was no better than a push poll. The City when providing information to the respondents about the proposed purchase said that the rates would stay the same or go down and Shoreline would acquire local control.
What they failed to disclose is that rates are going up regardless of whether the system is under the control of Seattle Public Utilities or Shoreline, or that Shoreline will be responsible for paying out of the general fund for fire suppression and hydrants at a rate of between 5-10% of revenue.
This means the 6% tax they propose will be inadequate to cover both hydrant and fire suppression plus additional funds to balance the budget. Remember there is no statutory limit on how high a city can tax their own water utility (unlike other tax limits).
Further the city wants a more aggressive repair and maintenance program, which is wise but their own documentation for a best case scenario shows this not to be possible until 2030.
They ignore the fact that Shoreline Water District provides better service than Seattle Public Utilities at a third of the cost. This is in part because it is a public utility. City owned utilities always cost more and often defer maintenance due to other budget issues.
Committee members and outside observers have noted that during the due diligence meetings of the citizen advisory committee there was so many issues not discussed as being outside the scope of what was allowed to be examined as to constitute manipulation by city staff toward a pre-determined outcome.
The city also violated the Open Meetings Act in late 2011 when the proposed purchase was discussed in Executive Session when it should have been a public meeting.
I could fill 10 pages with additional issues. If anyone would like to see Freedom of Information documents on this issue they are welcome to contact me.
Favorability towards the proposal understandably increased when the responder was given information. But what real dialogue was possible? For each of the following bits of information supplied, were the responders given the opportunity to ask any of the following questions? What were the answers?
"Purchasing this system will give the City of Shoreline and its
citizens direct control over water utility service…"
(In what other ways could that be achieved? Could the same argument be made for acquiring the Shoreline Water District water system in Shoreline? Could the same argument be made for acquiring the portion of Olympic View Water and Sewer District's water system that serves Point Wells in the event the City's Comprehensive Plan for the Point Wells Subarea is realized by annexing Point Wells into Shoreline? Could these utility acquisitions be made without a vote by the people of Shoreline? Since Shoreline does not include the Tolt or Cedar River Watersheds or their water treatment systems, how will the City of Shoreline and its citizens obtain direct control over the water supply?)
"No increase in taxes or water rates will be required to purchase the system. It will be paid by bonds…"
(Who will pay for the purchase? The ratepayers of the new system? Would this include the current ratepayers of the Shoreline Water District in the event their water system is later acquired without the necessity of a vote?)
"Shoreline customers of SPU currently pay a 14% water rate surcharge... as well as a 15% utility tax…"
(What is the breakdown of the 14% surcharge? Will the City charge its ratepayers a utility tax? How much? Shoreline currently charges a 6% franchise fee to SPU, which SPU passes right back to the ratepayers in Shoreline. Without that franchise, where will the City get the 6% it gets now?)
"Owning the water system means Shoreline can use revenues to reinvest in the system for things that SPU isn't focused on…"
(Will all of the revenues go toward supporting the water utility, like is done for the Shoreline Water District, or might some go towards competing capital projects or the general fund, like is done for Seattle Public Utilities? Will water ratepayers have to subsidize other public works improvements, like repayving the entire street when replacing a main?)
"...the City will pay more attention to maintaining it than SPU does now. We can improve the longevity and quality…"
(The Shoreline Water District has information about development plans in their service area. With this information they are better able to plan capital improvements to their utility. Does the City provide similar information currently to Seattle Public Utilities so they can adequately plan capital improvement projects in Shoreline? If not, why not?)
"The City would be able to run the Water Utility more efficiently by sharing the City's existing equipment/administration."
(Seattle Public Utilities has over half a million retail customers and over a million total customers. How could Shoreline possibly achieve the economies of scale that Seattle can?)
"Owning the water utility would make permitting easier,cheaper and quicker…"
(Development appears to be alive and well on the east side of I-5 in view of recent contracts in the Shoreline Water District. Is the permit difficulty due to multiple permitting authorities or to one of them being Seattle?)
"Future decisions about water rates will be made by Shoreline's elected officials instead of elected officials in Seattle."
(Can you demonstrate that Seattle's water rates are unfair? What is Seattle's rebuttal? Couldn't a well-run special purpose district with publicly elected commissioners, such as Shoreline Water District or Ronald Wastewater District accomplish the same goal? Or better yet, the free market?)
the school district due to incompetence on the part of King County & city staff was not billed $150,000 per year since the city assumed it but the school district wants a free pass - what does that say about the city running a potable water & wastewater utility
the majority of the city council wants to give the school district a pass on the stormwater - where is the fairness in billing for customers? it's based on use, not everyone in Shoreline has children - and the voters have already voted for a property tax increase, we should not have to pay for schools usage on water, sewer, and stormwater, especially in the amount of over one-half million dollars due to incompentence when the city wants to take over the water and sewer utility. Can we trust them to even do this job correctly since they can't even get this simple job right?
the school district commits water trespass in Hamlin park per the design contractor for Hamling Park & now they are going to build 6 tennis courts - more impervious surface & more water tresspass which contaminates Hamlin Creek and causes more problems downstream for SPU - which Shoreline proposes to takeover -- talk about circular problems!
the school district already has one of the highest property tax rates in the state - why should we give them more money, we already voted to give them money, we didn't vote to give them this money - especially those of us who don't have children (which is the majority in Shoreline)
the school district complains in olympia about having to educate students at fircrest as they are state wards, why should shoreline citizens with no children further subsidize the school district
marcia harris never should have been on the spu steering committee nor mark bunje unless they recuse their themselves from having their organizations from endorsing the measure - did they get their boards to approve their vote on the steering committee first as representing the official position of their organization?
Great article Very informative and useful articles. This is a nice post in an interesting line of content.Thanks for sharing this article, great way of bring this topic to discussion.
customer surveys
Post a Comment